Fake Dogon

Paleobree stands against internet dealers who knowingly  sell inauthentic pieces as authentic tribal art. The occasional, unwitting mistake on a website is unfortunate  but forgivable. Dealers sometimes genuinely do not realise that their stock contains inauthentic pieces, especially in areas of tribal art with which they are less familiar: rogue dealers intentionally defraud customers.

The website of a rogue dealer usually provides prima facie evidence of malpractice. It is impossible to trade on the internet effectively without providing photographs and descriptions: there is usually enough information on a website to make an accurate judgement about quality, likely authenticity and intention.

Paleobree tracks rogue dealers. We review their  websites regularly and keep up to date with their inventory and methods of trading. Occasionally, we have cause to contact them when acting on behalf of a complainant. 

Use our contact form to report a website which is - in your opinion - dubious or worse.  We may know about it already but tell us anyway. Information on current faking trends and sources would also be appreciated.

There is always the risk of an individual submitting malicious information but in our experience this is both rare and easily recognised.

It is perfectly legal to hold and express an opinion provided it is supported by evidence and the wording does not defame or cause offence.

All information stays with Paleobree, is never attributed and is never shared with third parties.  Your contact details are safe with Paleobree.   

Red Flags    

Paleobree accepts the right of sellers to trade in any legal product and make a profit which they deem to be fair.  However, Paleobree supports customers when they have been misled regarding an item's age, authenticity, provenance or rarity.

Paleobree operates a red flag system: prior to the publication of a customer's complaint, the seller is given fourteen days to review the complaint on a password-protected page. When the seller enters the password they can view the complaint exactly as it will appear when released. The date beside the red flag on the main menu is the date when the page goes public.

The complaint is deleted and the red flag withdrawn should the seller offer satisfactory recompense to the buyer during the fourteen day review period. If they fail to do so then the page goes public and the complaint stays on the record. 

Sellers are given every chance to correct any possible error and offer recompense. The majority of  complaints are dealt with before employing red flags: it is a last resort. 

Where possible, customer complaints are forwarded to the appropriate consumer affairs organisation in the seller's country of operation. Misdescription, misrepresentation and failure to offer recompense  is contrary to international consumer protection provisions and is illegal under trade descriptions  legislation. Caveat Emptor is no defence against such practices.

Published complaints

Seller: AfriCraft c.c  
http://www.africraft.co.za/

Shop F237
Gateway Theatre of Shopping
Umhlanga Rocks
KwaZulu-Natal
South Africa

The customer's statement of complaint: 

             

The illustrated 'Chokwe' mask was described by a representative of AfriCraft  as dating to the early 1900's in a prior-to-sale communication  The representative also stated that the 'one-off' item was personally collected in Zaire/DRC.

I agreed to buy the mask for the Rand equivalent of +/- 600 Euros, believing it to be as described.

The representative of AfriCraft stated in a later after-sale communication that the mask was collected in person in Zaire/DRC and was dated to the 1920's, as were all the other masks in the store's Chokwe collection. They also stated that it was a used piece. They also stated that only carbon dating with a curator could reveal the true age.

The seller also stated in writing:

'The (Tchokwe) Mwnapwo mask belongs to the Royal house which is identified with the coiffure, the distinctive scarifications and the refined features, which makes it a rare piece.'

'This piece is authentic and dates back to the 1900's'.

'This Pwo mask was libated with sorgum before it was used'.

The mask has been appraised as not antique (an attributed age of 50 years or more for an African item) and not authentic. The mask is a handicraft pastiche.

In reply to the forwarded appraisal the same representative of AfriCraft stated that they dealt in contemporary and authentic pieces and did not claim to sell antiques. The mask was then claimed to be from a collection (name supplied) and the mask's given description was that of the collection's owner, not the seller's. No further reference was made to personally collecting the item in Zaire/DRC.

AfricArt was informed that the mask had been described incorrectly to me, being given the status of an antique in terms of attributed age, and the status of an authentic piece in terms of use.

The possibility of the description being made in error was raised. A request was made to AfriCraft to contact me within seven days to arrange for repayment and the return of the mask. No response was received.

The item was sold to me with incorrect description and attribution. I bought the item believing these details to be correct. The seller failed to offer me recompense following what I believe to be a correct appraisal of the item. I have recorded all communication regarding this matter. 

JD (name supplied)